Why was Kovalchuk's initial deal rejected by the NHL, and deals like this are allowed?

apparently they draw the line at 17 years.

Seriously, or what that more tongue-in-cheek?

I'll be the first to admit that I am a hypocrite in saying that, while I'm glad we have Crosby inked to the deal we do, I don't like these sort of contracts at all.

That being said, where there's a will, there's a way, and they teams/players will always find a loophole. If the new CBA has these deals outlawed, the next thing will be giving guys huge signing bonuses or something.

Why was Kovalchuk's initial deal rejected by the NHL, and deals like this are allowed?

apparently they draw the line at 17 years.

Seriously, or what that more tongue-in-cheek?

I'll be the first to admit that I am a hypocrite in saying that, while I'm glad we have Crosby inked to the deal we do, I don't like these sort of contracts at all.

That being said, where there's a will, there's a way, and they teams/players will always find a loophole. If the new CBA has these deals outlawed, the next thing will be giving guys huge signing bonuses or something.

i'm pretty sure kovy's first deal was for 17 years and it was rejected. then it got approved when it was reduced to 15 years.

pfim wrote:They would also still need to acquire more salary to get over the cap floor as well. They're basically paying for two superstars, and only getting one, while still needing to add salary.

The team was insolvent under Leipold and had to solicit the two Pens' grifters (Del Biago and Ballsillie) to effect a sale. I don't share your optimism regarding their finances.

They were profitable 3 years ago when they missed the playoffs, so I'm pretty sure that with rising attendance and also making the playoffs into the 2nd round the last two years while still not spending much, Preds are in pretty good financial position. Whether they want to match the Flyers' front-loaded offer or not is another question.

Kraftster wrote:Why would Nashville not match this? The upfront cash cannot really be an issue or, as has been said, they should just fold.

I doubt very much a team like Nashville, with the revenues they have and the newer ownership group they have, would have $13 million laying around in an account in July. I'm pretty certain there would need to be some re-financing or re-capitalization to pull that off.

Isn't that really thinking about this too deeply. You have no idea how much is in their "account".

Talking about re-financing and re-capitalization seems a bit much if you ask me.

Pretty sure the NHL is also taking a long look at this offer sheet and thinking about whether it violates the "spirit" of the existing CBA. Obviously, they've nullified contracts before based on that same thinking.

Idoit40fans wrote:I'd definitely rather have Weber than 4 picks in the 20-30 range.

Yeah, but they'll presumably also have four of their own. Two #1 picks in each of the next four years is impressive. A good trader could turn those into two or even three very high picks and completely change the team. Or they could end up with eight busts. ... But, then again, who wouldn't pay to see something with eight busts?

brwi wrote:Pretty sure the NHL is also taking a long look at this offer sheet and thinking about whether it violates the "spirit" of the existing CBA. Obviously, they've nullified contracts before based on that same thinking.

When was the watershed moment that teams discovered they could use signing bonuses to abuse the CBA? I don't remember seeing it in years past. I know in my mind I thought that signing bonuses were only available in the first year of deals, and I fancy myself as someone who knows more than the average bear about the NHL CBA. Essentially, by structuring these deals with huge signing bonuses for multiple seasons, teams are able to circumvent the rule regarding the decline in salary from one year to the next or over the life of the contract. I would not be at all surprised if this is looked at by the NHL.

Kraftster wrote:Why would Nashville not match this? The upfront cash cannot really be an issue or, as has been said, they should just fold.

I doubt very much a team like Nashville, with the revenues they have and the newer ownership group they have, would have $13 million laying around in an account in July. I'm pretty certain there would need to be some re-financing or re-capitalization to pull that off.

Isn't that really thinking about this too deeply. You have no idea how much is in their "account".

Talking about re-financing and re-capitalization seems a bit much if you ask me.

Then what else is there to discuss? Not having the cash to pay it is really the only reason why they wouldn't do it.

pfim wrote:They would also still need to acquire more salary to get over the cap floor as well. They're basically paying for two superstars, and only getting one, while still needing to add salary.

The team was insolvent under Leipold and had to solicit the two Pens' grifters (Del Biago and Ballsillie) to effect a sale. I don't share your optimism regarding their finances.

They were profitable 3 years ago when they missed the playoffs, so I'm pretty sure that with rising attendance and also making the playoffs into the 2nd round the last two years while still not spending much, Preds are in pretty good financial position. Whether they want to match the Flyers' front-loaded offer or not is another question.

I keep going over the numbers and i just don't see how Nashville matches unless THEY KNOW Weber wants to play his career in there. It's those signing bonuses. That deal where Weber is due 27 million in the first 11 months is a killer and if the Preds were to match the offer and then try to trade him a year from now, they will essentially have to eat 27 million for one year of service.

That just doesn't make sense no matter how badly Nashville wants to match.

pfim wrote:They would also still need to acquire more salary to get over the cap floor as well. They're basically paying for two superstars, and only getting one, while still needing to add salary.

The team was insolvent under Leipold and had to solicit the two Pens' grifters (Del Biago and Ballsillie) to effect a sale. I don't share your optimism regarding their finances.

They were profitable 3 years ago when they missed the playoffs, so I'm pretty sure that with rising attendance and also making the playoffs into the 2nd round the last two years while still not spending much, Preds are in pretty good financial position. Whether they want to match the Flyers' front-loaded offer or not is another question.

Yeah, ownership will continue pleading poverty and taking all the taxpayer monies they can while not showing the actual financials

I clearly remember 3 years ago the CEO at the time stating the Preds "turned a small profit" after they finished out of the playoffs and since then the financial picture has dramatically improved in every area for the Preds from arena deal, corp sponsorships, attendance, etc. I can say with a lot of certainty here that the Preds have a very positive cash flow the past 2 years, just like I can say with a lot of certainty that the Thrashers were losing around 20mil due to debt service. I've seen the numbers

Idoit40fans wrote:I'd definitely rather have Weber than 4 picks in the 20-30 range.

1. Weber2. High cap hit3. Absurd contract length

vs.

1. Despres2. Bennett3. Morrow4. Maataa

No thanks, I'll keep the late first round picks.

And only one of those picks has seen any sort of NHL ice.

Bit early for that. Plus, Nashville's draft record hasn't been that great in recent years. That's a pretty huge hole to fill (Weber) and it's not going to happen this year via FA or drafting in the future.

It pisses me off to no end that it seems like the Flyers just throw whatever against the wall and it always works out for them. They could have 1 million in cap space and are able to pull off crazy moves to get under. They sign guys to 10+ year contracts, trade them away, and yet players still go sign long term deals with them. Eventually, something has got to go wrong for them. Weber in Philly would be awful...

dman66 wrote:It pisses me off to no end that it seems like the Flyers just throw whatever against the wall and it always works out for them. They could have 1 million in cap space and are able to pull off crazy moves to get under. They sign guys to 10+ year contracts, trade them away, and yet players still go sign long term deals with them. Eventually, something has got to go wrong for them. Weber in Philly would be awful...

Well realistically, nothing has really worked out for them since the mid 70s.

Idoit40fans wrote:I'd definitely rather have Weber than 4 picks in the 20-30 range.

1. Weber2. High cap hit3. Absurd contract length

vs.

1. Despres2. Bennett3. Morrow4. Maatta

No thanks, I'll keep the late first round picks.

edit: typo

It would be more like:

1. Despres in 20132. Bennett in 20143. Morrow in 20154. Maatta in 2016

The Preds aren't going to give up Weber for the chance that 4 guys might make it to the league in years 2015-2019 unless they absolutely must. Makes no sense, they had the third most points in the Western Conference last year. They'd be giving up the best defenseman currently in the league for four guys who most likely won't be as good, and won't be there to make an impact for at least the next 3-7 years.

I'd love to see the Preds call Weber's bluff, match the offer, and issue a statement that they are looking forward to having Webet's services for the rest of his career. Weber will have royally screwed himself at that point.

Tico Rick wrote:I'd love to see the Preds call Weber's bluff, match the offer, and issue a statement that they are looking forward to having Webet's services for the rest of his career. Weber will have royally screwed himself at that point.

Unfortunately, I think they have to move on. The way he's orchestrated this seems a bit distasteful, but not as distasteful as paying him $110 million dollars and having him sulk for 14 years.

And let's say he says he's happy. I can't think he'd be the most popular player amongst the fans at this point, draining the teams' coffers and affecting their ability to sign other players.